There seems to be two different conceptions of what constitutes the Upper Midwest.

The more common one seems to be centered in Minnesota and is characterized by its large Scandinavian/German and Lutheran presence

The other definition seems to be defined by Yankee culture and lakes.

Pretty much every definition I think includes Minnesota and Wisconsin. The "Yankees and lakes" definition obviously takes in Michigan, while the "Greater Minnesota" one would take in the Dakotas and perhaps Iowa.

From my geographical perspective, it basically means the part of the Midwest on the lakes, maybe minus those states which only kiss the lakes (Illinois and Indiana) or two far east (Ohio), as these states have large regions whose climate, culture and history differ quite a bit from the stuff on the lakes. I'd say it always includes Minnesota, Wisconsin Michigan and probably the Dakotas (definitely culturally), geographically. In my mind, though, the Dakotas are much more defined by being in the Great Plains. My definitition is really heavily weighted geographically and politically, so the "center" in definition would really be more Wisconsin than Minnesota, where the river splits the state.

In the Twin Cities people never think of Michigan as part of the upper Midwest (maybe the UP). Here it is basically intended to mean the Twin Cities sphere of influence plus the parts of Wisconsin that are in Chicago's sphere - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa down to Des Moines and the Dakotas.

In the Twin Cities people never think of Michigan as part of the upper Midwest (maybe the UP). Here it is basically intended to mean the Twin Cities sphere of influence plus the parts of Wisconsin that are in Chicago's sphere - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa down to Des Moines and the Dakotas.

There seems to be two different conceptions of what constitutes the Upper Midwest.

The more common one seems to be centered in Minnesota and is characterized by its large Scandinavian/German and Lutheran presence

The other definition seems to be defined by Yankee culture and lakes.

Pretty much every definition I think includes Minnesota and Wisconsin. The "Yankees and lakes" definition obviously takes in Michigan, while the "Greater Minnesota" one would take in the Dakotas and perhaps Iowa.

Minnesota, Wisconsin the UP and dakotas

Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska Iowa, Missouri Kansas Are Cote Midwest

Michigan, Ohio, parts of Pennsylvania and maybe even some upstate New York are the “rust belt” Midwest

There is some debate weather Oklahoma northern Texas and Arkansas are Midwest but to me they are really not, they are too southern and too Texan to be like the Midwest

You can't just mix proximal/geographical and cultural/historical definitions. "Upper" Midwest is very clearly a geographical definition defining it in relation to other parts of the Midwest. So, something could be both Rustbelt and Upper, or Great Plains and Upper. This isn't an either/or proposition.

You can't just mix proximal/geographical and cultural/historical definitions. "Upper" Midwest is very clearly a geographical definition defining it in relation to other parts of the Midwest. So, something could be both Rustbelt and Upper, or Great Plains and Upper. This isn't an either/or proposition.

Michigan, Ohio, parts of Pennsylvania and maybe even some upstate New York are the “rust belt” Midwest

There is some debate weather Oklahoma northern Texas and Arkansas are Midwest but to me they are really not, they are too southern and too Texan to be like the Midwest

Calling part of Pennsylvania and upstate New York part of the Midwest is a bit of a stretch, even if there are similarities between, say, western New York and northeast Ohio. But Arkansas and north Texas as the Midwest? Seriously? Does anyone really wonder if Oklahoma City, Dallas, Little Rock, or Memphis are Midwestern cities?